Last Updated Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:21:42 EST
CBC News
Lebanon's interior minister has resigned after thousands of protesters, angered by newspaper publications of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, rampaged through a Christian neighbourhood in Beirut and torched the Danish Embassy.
Officials said at least one person died and about 200 people were arrested in the violence on Sunday, which came a day after Syrian demonstrators set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus.
Muslim anger over the depictions, which were first published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted elsewhere, continued to build on Sunday with other protests held in at least 25 countries.
Lebanese Interior Minister Hassan Sabei submitted his resignation during a late-night emergency cabinet meeting.
Sabei said about 3,000 soldiers and police officers did their best to stop the crowd but were overwhelmed by as many as 20,000 protesters, many armed with sticks and stones.
He said he hadn't been prepared to risk a bloodbath to stop them.
"Things got out of hand when elements that had infiltrated into the ranks of the demonstrators broke through security shields," he said.
"The one remaining option was an order to shoot, but I was not prepared to order the troops to shoot Lebanese citizens."
Before storming the embassy, the protesters marched through the Christian area of east Beirut, burning cars, smashing windows and attacking a Christian church.
A line of soldiers and security officers held back protesters for a while by lobbing tear gas, spraying water cannons and firing warning shots into the air.
But the protesters broke through the cordon and started a fire that gutted the10-storey embassy, which had been evacuated two days ago for fear of violence.
Officials said at least 30 people were injured, including more than a dozen security officers. Security officials told the Associated Press that a protester died after leaping from a window of the embassy to escape the smoke.
Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said about 200 people had been detained. Police officials said they included 76 Syrians, 35 Palestinians and 38 Lebanese.
Denmark urged its citizens to leave Lebanon as soon as they could.
Many prominent Muslims, as well as political leaders across Lebanon and around the world, condemned the violence.
Some Muslim clerics had tried to wade in front of the crowd of demonstrators and keep them from torching the embassy.
The spiritual leader of Lebanon's Sunni Muslims, Grand Mufti Mohammed Rashid Kabbani, was among those who suggested that Islamic radicals had incited the crowds.
Kabbani accused non-Lebanese agitators of infiltrating the protest to try to "harm the stability of Lebanon" and "distort the image of Islam."
A leading Sunni politician in Lebanon, Saad Hariri, said the incident marked a "black day" for the country's Muslims.
But some protesters said their actions and anger were justified.
"Anyone else who will only think about insulting our Prophet – he will be killed," one of the protesters, Achmad, told CBC News. "The people who wrote about our Prophet and draw his picture: we are not finished with them."
Protests were also held in other countries around the world on Sunday, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, the West Bank, France, Belgium and Sudan, where 50,000 demonstrators jammed the streets of Khartoum.
Most protests have been peaceful.
The editorial cartoons were first published by a Danish newspaper in September 2005 and then reprinted by some other European publications in a show of support for freedom of the press.
They inflamed many Muslims around the world because Islam forbids any depictions of Muhammad.
Several governments, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya, have issued very strong statements condemning the caricatures and calling on Denmark to do something to punish those involved. Some governments have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark.
Hol-ey frick. This is what blindly believing in unalterable doctrine a couple of thousand years old will make you do!!! Especially when added into a stew of mass hysteria....isn't religion great? Why would a political satire cartoon make the Muslim world fly into a frenzy, yet we make fun of Christian icons all the time? I think I know some of the answer, but it's not really a clear-cut one. Part of it is definitely democracy vs. theocracy, some of it is economic/cultural/technological/educational haves vs. have-nots, but I think most of it is religion 1 vs. religion 2....the battle of the ages. You'd think after thousands of years of cracking skulls of the non-believers, we'd be coming up with better solutions to dealing with our differences. It's like a fucking family feud. Hatfields vs. McCoys. No one even remembers why they're fighting anymore.
Some dogma is particularly more dangerous than other dogma. I won't mention any names here for fear of having someone come and burn down my house because I offended their 'words of god', but some of the big religions are particularly dangerous and something should be really done from within the religions to get things back to a condition of sanity and reason. Is this even possible for any religion - particularly a religion that has a central doctrine of unquestionably killing those that will not convert, those that will not defend their god/prophets to the death, and that must eventually spread the word of the prophet over the entire world as a final revelationary action? Anyone that questions or refutes the doctrines is either killed, encarcerated, or shunned? Hah! Now can you even distinguish what religion I'm talking about anymore with the last few points?
Did you know it is written in the Koran that non-believers (infidels) are not to be tolerated, but killed if they do not convert? Did you know that people who were once Muslim but leave the religion are to be put to death too? Even for moderates of this religion, these concepts MUST shape their worldview to some extent. Even if they say 'it's not the way of Islam' to behave fanatically. Christianity is no better. People who claim to be moderates of any religion simply realize the holes in their faith and religion due to their own deductive reasoning, but because they're fearful of the unknown they cling to the dogma, guilt, and mixed messages of their religious flavor - These people are the biggest hypocrits of all!!!
"I can accept some parts of my faith but not others, and of course this is all based on my personal views of what possibly could be advantageous to me getting easy passage to the afterlife". (See? Blind faith in something we know absolutely NOTHING about - what happens to us after we die (if anything). If that's not irrational thought then I don't know what is!).
It's all freakin' retarded. How are these behaviours even tolerated? Oh right, religion in its own definition tolerates these things because 'it is written' to be so. No further critical analysis required. End of story. More accurately, let me make a correction - it is tolerated because 'it was incorrectly translated' to be so. There - that makes it much better.
Once again, I throw out this question (as posed by Sam Harris in "The End of Faith" (a highly recommended read by the way)): Why in this day and age of weapons of mass destruction where a single person or group can potentially have the capability to kill millions do we continue to give religion the 'leap in faith' we do in the things it does that shape our world? It's so obviously nutty, why do we continue not to apply critical deductive analysis to religious tenets? We apply systems of discourse, testing and skepticism to all other aspects of our society - why/how does religion conveniently by-pass this same treatment? It's because everyone knows religion would NEVER be able to hold up to these applications. I find the entire action of tip-toeing around religious issues quite pathetic - and dangerous. I know why - but it's not right (people who get offended by others criticizing their religion act exactly the way how things are going down right now in Damascus and Beirut), nor is it rational. In the REAL world of today, we need clear, reasonable thinking and decision making. Not unsubstantiated faith in myths and works of fiction and unwavering belief of these myths being some sort of divine law. Virgin births? Voices from the sky or out of hats? Speedpasses to heavenly paradise after death as a reward for martyrdom? ...Okay, right, that all really, really makes sense......
With the upsurge of religious belief in the world today, it appears we're heading in the opposite direction. Yay for us! I question whether we collectively have the mental capacity, i.e. the spiritual cajones to prevent ourselves from blowing ourselves up. We need to stop acting like frightened little animals and suck up the reality that we really are small, weak insignificant specks in the whole scheme of things. Now that takes some critical thought - do we have it in us? Why are these such a hard concept to deal with? I understand death is a daunting concept, but we're all eventually going to do it? Why not just focus on living and stop worrying about stuff we can't control or understand - yet?
Collective obliteration based on folk tales - maybe it would be a good thing. At least it would get rid of blind-faith religion.
Believe MY truth! No, believe MY truth! All others believe in false gods! I'll kill you if you don't believe MY truth!
14 comments:
Yay! I love Sunday night service calls. Always at 12:30am. I love my job.
Wow! Rant much? You certainly must've had a crappy day, dude. Not to worry, tomorrow will be better.
First of all, there are basic 'morals' that we all basically follow that are not even religious-based (even though the religions claim they are). I think we can commonly agree that murder is wrong, protecting children is right, and preventing pain and suffering to other fellow human beings is wrong as well. You don't need a religion to tell you these universal truths. It's simple humanness that dictates this to us. Some people think that morality, faith, and religion are of the same cloth, but I would argue they really aren't at all.
Secondly, what is this thing called 'sin'? What exactly is it? Every single human being on the planet would have a different interpretation of it and what should be defined as sinful or not. It's a very intangible term, yet dictates so much of dogmatic guidance. It's the vehicle that fuels religion in the first place. If you weren't a low-life sinner in the first place, you wouldn't feel ashamed and vulnerable. If you were able to achieve self-actualization and belief in your own power, control and self-determination, then you certainly wouldn't need someone else telling you what to do and whether what you're doing is right or wrong, now would you?
Thirdly - stop ranting about the club forms. You knew it was coming, and you knew why. I refuse to go through another of these freaking seasons having to dispute someone on the team because their interpretation of something differed from the Execs. Just because cp didn't know or forgot something was there doesn't mean anything. Chill out, man! Do some of the work on our side, and you'll understand why we're trying to document these things to hopefully end up in an all-encompassing club charter or something. Of course it will never be perfect. I do understand where you're coming from. We've got a very big spectrum of personalities that we have to try and accommodate, and of course not everyone is going to like everything that's done and said all the time. You're going to find that in any club/experience you ever have. It's more a matter of whether you think what 'we're' doing is more or less offensive/oppressive/stupid than what 'the other guys' are doing. If you feel your objectives are not cohesing with what we're trying to accomplish as a TEAM, then I encourage you to find something that works better for you. Simple as that.
Yeah God!
Of course, if this were religion instead of a bike team you were trying to leave, I'd probably have to kill you rather than let you defect.
I was going to post on this topic Reid but you've already done such a good job that I'll simply comment on your post. When I heard about the riots and firebombing it made me shake my head. As with most satire, it was dead on point. Many Muslims are extreme and very few have any kind of sense of humour about their religion. The Globe and Mail spoke with some prominent Canadian Muslims about the situation and their comments were very interesting. They agreed with the images that the cartoons were representing but suggested that instead of depicting Mohammed, they should have depicted Osama Bin Laden or the Iranian president. They also suggested that the cartoons were highly similar to old anti-semitic cartoons published in the 30s. While Jews are still discriminated against in our society, Muslims are becoming increasingly targetted.
Another interesting point can be made. While we all agree that religion has no place in our lives, when you say that all religions must "die", you're repeating the same ass backwards doctrine of all the religions! If you said so with irony then I missed it. If not, think on it. I see the same thing from so many people, more tolerance for my group but less tolerance for someone else. If we continue along the path of tolerance/rights for some and intolerance/lack of rights for others, we'll never end the cycle of violence and hatred that we're in.
Regarding the 3rd thing....I'm with Reid. How can you take anyone seriously who throws a shoe at a volunteer in a race.
tsk tsk now, bk........such language........wonder if your employer appreciates that while on HIS time??
Interesting point, Jon. Of course I was tongue in cheek about the 'religion must die' quip. I realize that religion becomes a great source of strength for many people when they have nothing else to cling to, and for that I must admire religion. An institution such as organized religion doesn't survive thousands of years for no reason at all. I don't think I have any animosity towards devoutly religious people. I think it's more disappointment that people need so desperately to cling onto something. I have problem with the ideologies of the religions themselves. I definitely have more tolerance for discussing such issues with people who critically analyze their belief systems, however. I have no time to discuss the significance of a particular religion with someone who has unflinching faith in it without putting it in context of when it was written, by whom, and what significant things have happened historically that shaped it into what it is today. I think the last point is particularly pointed at fundamentalists. Yeah, evolution may not be a perfect theory, but it has a hundred years of empirical evidence to at least make the statement it is a lot better explanation of the world than creationism is.
That also revisits the question of how humans innately crave identification with a group. That sense of belonging is almost a biological drive, I think. It's a survival mechanism that's built into us. Religions manipulate that for their own use though. And there's no doubt that the white men will fight to retain their power advantage, no matter what, and claim it in the name of their god too. It's all so fucked.
So what if we're all different? Most inexperienced people are scared of it, and don't even give the idea of learning from the experience of seeing something differently. That distrust comes from a fear that people might discover something horribly deficient in their own belief systems once they find out there are different ways to approach things. See how this all circles around on itself? How relevant it is to religious belief? It's all so complicated *sigh*. I wish they'd stop burning down the Danish embassies though. The poor Danes, being blamed for something they had nothing to do with.
Ah crap - we're all to blame for everything that's wrong. Everyone insists on remaining blameless, thus the problems persist.
I see it now. The only possible solution. Bring back communism and their worship the party as god mentality and all other gods will cease to exist. It's so simple! A paradise, a workers paradise!
There's always a god involved in the equation, isn't there? Frick...stupid monkeys....
Monkey business? I dunno.
But boy, can religion be a such ugly business. I am really beginning to think that it is part of the stupidity endemic to our species.
*tongue inserts into cheek... somewhat.*
After 90% of the global population dies off due to a case of massively overwhelming ...
select one:
_ stupidity
_ bigotry
_ selfishness
_ lack of resources
_ incurable disease
_ global thermonuclear war
_ any of the above
we should recover into two general groups:
reproductive females and children on one side of the river, and all men over the age of 10 on the other side.
Both groups farm, fish and hunt for resources.
Gay bonding especially encouraged, but allow the hetero men to cross over the river once a year to breed with hetero women.
But only once a year - don't want to go needlessly spreading those reproductive cooties that got us in deep ca-ca last time.
Of course, the women are in agreement with this for the sake of the survival of the species.
Oh, and also pick up any male children bred from the last year.
Laws would be cherished, values honored, spirituality accepted but not formalized, and hopefully, acts of willful and grave stupidity punished by an application of Darwinian justice (exclusion from the community).
Something like the village people, with a lot of gay (and lesbian) indians. And things made from burned out remants of the old industrial civilization.
Net effects: the global ecosystm repairs itself (slowly) - air and water is healthier.
Immune systems rebuild. Lifespans are shorter; people are generally healthier, but instead of fighting traffic jams, we will fight off wolf packs, bears, and roaming bands of brigands.
People do more physically intensive labour; that and lower calorie diets
result in less obesity.
*removes tongue from cheek*
Hmmm. Might the near-utter destruction of life as we know it not be so bad after all...?
The very first lunatic rant on this subject was by "bk". bk, I ask you, what the hell is, and I quote "Seven Day Adventis, Murmons, Christains". Do you, purchance, mean Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christians?? Let's hope for bk's sake that this was special rant spelling and not the kind that he would use at his job.
Post a Comment